Cingular Pennsylvania’s application on tap for discussion Dec. 7

HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP ZONING UPDATE

By Marianne Hooker
   At its Nov. 2 meeting, the Hopewell Township Zoning Board of Adjustment approved two hardship variances for residential properties.
   One will allow construction of a building addition, and the other will permit a higher-than-normal accessory structure to be rebuilt on a new site.
   The board granted an appeal for an exception to the normal driveway frontage requirements for a landlocked lot off Mt. Airy-Harbourton Road. They also approved a second one-year extension of the use variance and site plan approval that was granted in 2002 to the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association.
   The application by Cingular Pennsylvania, involving plans for a replacement telecommunications tower on New Road, was postponed to the Dec. 7 meeting at the applicant’s request.
   Appeal from driveway frontage requirements — Attorney Archibald Reid presented the case on behalf of Lanwin Development, Inc. The property in question is a large tract of farmland located off Mt. Airy-Harbourton Road, in the MRC zone. There is a Mercer County agricultural land easement covering most of this property. The tract includes a two-acre "exception area" that would be a possible future site for a home. The potential building site cannot be subdivided, but must stay attached to the agricultural land.
   The property in question, "Lot 2," is located behind a tract of farmland under different ownership, which is known as Lot 1. Lot 1 has a similar agricultural land easement, plus an exception area for a possible future building site. This lot has frontage along Mt. Airy-Harbourton Road, and there is a shared driveway that provides access to both properties.
   Mr. Reid said there is an easement allowing the owner of Lot 2 to use the Lot 1 driveway for agricultural purposes. However, under the present regulations they would not be able to use this driveway for residential access, should they choose to develop the building site on Lot 2. Mr. Reid said there were no immediate plans to build on this site. However, the applicant may wish to do so at some future point. To make possible the eventual development of the building lot, Lanwin was appealing for relief from the provision in the zoning ordinance that requires a building lot to have frontage on an approved street.
   Mr. Reid said Lanwin also owns Lot 5, a parcel of land directly north of Lot 2. This lot is in East Amwell, and it has frontage along Rock Road. In theory, it would be possible to build a driveway through Lot 5, thus providing access to Lot 2 from Rock Road. However, a stream and an area of wetlands create a practical barrier between Lot 5 and the proposed building site. Thus, Lanwin’s preferred means of access to Lot 2 would be from the common driveway through Lot 1.
   Mr. Reid introduced Todd Colarusso, vice president of Lanwin, who described the existing driveway serving Lot 1 and Lot 2. It is a gravel road that is partly paved in one spot. The driveway was used for many years by trap and skeet shooters from a local gun club.
   During the public comment period, the board heard testimony from Mike Chopan of 126 Mt. Airy-Harbourton Road. Mr. Chopan said the driveway in question goes along the north side of his property. He expressed concern about increasing the use of the driveway, which he thought could have an adverse effect on his land. In his view, the driveway has not been properly maintained. There is a gully along it resulting from erosion.
   In response, Mr. Colarusso described the efforts that had been made to address the driveway erosion. There were no comments on this application from any other members of the public. The board voted unanimously to grant Lanwin’s appeal for relief from the driveway frontage requirements that normally apply. However, if the present common driveway is eventually converted to residential use, it must meet the approval of the township engineer.
   Right side yard setback variance — Ted and Jane Petrie, who live at 3Alta Vista Drive, in the R-150 zone, were requesting a 25-foot right sideyard setback variance in order to build an addition to their existing dwelling. This building already encroaches into the right side yard to some extent. The proposed addition would project 8 feet further into the side yard.
   Mr. Petrie said their property is bisected by a stream. This fact, along with the lot size and the setback requirements, created certain design restrictions when the house was built. The present house has a very small dining room and kitchen. The proposed addition would increase the size of these two rooms, and also allow for a larger family room.
   Mr. Petrie said it would not be possible to expand the house by building out in front, because the driveway and garage would be in the way. They could not build on to the left side because of the stream.. To the rear of the building there is a living room and an elevated deck, as well as a specimen oak tree that is very close to the building. So to build on an addition, the most feasible site would be to the right of the building.
   There were no comments on this application from any members of the public. Mr. Petrie said that the neighbor who would be most affected by the proposed addition is the neighbor to the right. He said she favors their building plans, and in fact helped to produce some of the supporting drawings. The board approved the Petries’ variance request by a unanimous vote.
   Accessory building height variance — Philip Robins of 1200 River Road, in the R-100 zone, requested a 6-foot variance from the height restriction for accessory buildings. Mr. Robins plans to reconstruct a barn from Doylestown on the existing foundation of an old carriage house. The structure he proposes to rebuild is similar in type to what was there before. The property in question is on the local, state, and national registers of historic places.
   The site of the former carriage house is outside of the Delaware River floodplain. Mr. Robins said he was not proposing to change the footprint of the building. He plans only to raise the roof and add a second floor. The building would be used for storage purposes, and it would not have any water, electricity, or heat. Mr. Robins said he intends to apply for approval from the local historic commission and the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission.
   Board Chairman William Connolly said the proposed building is a historic prototype, which would not look right if its height was reduced. In his view, truncating the building would defeat the purpose of preserving a historic structure.
   There were no comments on this application from any members of the public. The board voted unanimously to approve the 6-foot height variance for the proposed accessory building.
   Other business — The board granted a second one-year extension of site plan approval to the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association. Jim Waltman, executive director of the SB-MWA, said that due to budget limitations, they would need another year to proceed with their plans. The board also adopted a resolution of memorialization to formalize the approval granted last month to William James.